Origin of Religion - Part I: Fear of Death
As I mentioned in my last post, I believe that religion had an important role to play in the development of modern humans. It facilitated the transition from unaware animals to sentient, social beings. Religion happened for a reason (or several). I am fully aware that everything to follow is pure speculation. Until someone manages to build a time machine that goes in both directions, it will be impossible to do anything more than guess at the origin of religion.
Animals (scientists believe) don’t know that they are going to die. While there has been some evidence that this may not be true of some species (like elephants), it is generally accepted as true for the vast majority of species. So, we can conclude, that at some point there was one furry little primate that first put two and two together. Try to put yourself into the brain of this creature. Theists should find it especially easy to simulate that kind of simplistic nervous system. You’re wandering around, looking for berries, when you find a dead individual of your species. You poke him a couple of times and then accept that he’s dead. Dead? “HOLY SHIT! What’s that mean? Am I going to be dead?” Pretty traumatic stuff, no?
Generations later, this knowledge had spread. The species “got it.” Life is temporary. Sooner or later, the species evolved further and developed the greatest double-edged sword of consciousness… imagination. I don’t think it’s too much of a leap to deduce that a being with 1) fear of death and 2)imagination comes up with 3) religion. Explanation of death (and what follows) is one of the most important functions of religion. Almost every religion features an afterlife of some sort or another. I’ve had a few Christians admit to me when pressed that they cling to their faith because they can’t stand the thought of the finality of death. Animals are driven to survive. It’s not surprising that a concept allowing survival BEYOND death would catch on
But then that furry little primate developed science, philosophy, reason and digital watches. We learned some of the intimate secrets of life, and started to understand death from a new perspective. As for the afterlife, we could see billions of light years into the sky. Where was heaven? We dove to the bottom of the ocean. Where was hell?
If you’re looking to be rescued from death in 2005, support stem cell research.
~I AM~
May 22nd, 2005 at at 4:21 pm
I really like elephants. They may be smarter than most of the humans I know. I also really like digital time devices.
Good post, I Am.
May 22nd, 2005 at at 5:12 pm
Nice post. However, I was wondering where you got the information that animals do not know that they are going to die. Would a bird that watched her baby fall out of the nest and hit the ground, never to move again, not know that the baby was dead? And then would they not assume that the same thing would happen to them if they were in the same situation? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just have never heard that before and would be interested in seeing exactly how it was researched.
May 22nd, 2005 at at 5:26 pm
I’ve never had a fear of death. I have a fear of dying painfully. Nice post.
May 22nd, 2005 at at 5:28 pm
I’ll grant that it’s impossible to know what animals think or understand. You can ask, but it doesn’t get you very far. I don’t believe most animals have the capacity to generalize the way your example would require.
In short, while I hadn’t expected resistance on that point, I think it’s an excellent question. I’ll find some links and post them here.
May 22nd, 2005 at at 7:09 pm
I’m amazed by how little material I’ve found dealing with this issue. First, I found this. The first two pages relate somewhat to this discussion, but the whole thing is a pretty good read. It draws a distinction between understanding death and anticipating it.
I then found an article entitled “Concept Attribution in Nonhuman Animals: Theoretical and Methodological Problems in Ascribing Complex Mental Processes” by Colin Allen and Marc D. Hauser from Philosophy of Science June 1991. It contains an interesting discussion of death in ants. When decomposing dead ants begin to give off oleic acid, they are carred away for disposal. However, workers exhibit the same behavior with pieces of paper or even LIVE ANTS that have been dabbed with the right chemical signal. They clearly have no concept of death.
Even in primates like Kenyan Yellow Baboons (same article), understanding of death seems unlikely. Mothers carry around babies for long periods after the infant’s death, exhibiting unchanged behavior. When they finally abandon their dead young, they seem conflicted and ambivalent.
I would love to be able to link to the article, but I could only find a PDF through a paid index, and I don’t think I’m allowed to do that. If you have access to JSTOR or a similar service, check it out. I hope this has been helpful.
May 22nd, 2005 at at 7:23 pm
If you haven’t already read it, you might enjoy Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer, who theorizes (if you’ll permit me to oversimplify) that religion has its origin in hyperactive agency-seeking behaviors and other instinctive behaviors whose meanings tend to get warped and reinterpreted by the ignorance and imagination.
May 23rd, 2005 at at 12:10 am
Great, thanks I AM. I appreciate you taking the time to look it up. I’ll read it tomorrow over my morning coffee
May 23rd, 2005 at at 9:00 am
Delta Wrote: However, I was wondering where you got the information that animals do not know that they are going to die. Would a bird that watched her baby fall out of the nest and hit the ground, never to move again, not know that the baby was dead? And then would they not assume that the same thing would happen to them if they were in the same situation?
I don’t think the post meant that animals did not fear danger because of a fear of death but more that animals don’t ANTICIPATE death and consider what is “next” the way humans do.
May 23rd, 2005 at at 12:19 pm
Every human has an explanation for what happens after death, where time begins and ends, etc. Your “religion” determines your explanation. If you’re an atheist, your god is maybe the inanimate universe, and what happens after death is, well, inanimate. You are 32c worth of chemicals that seep back into the soil. You can’t escape religion. You can only determine who your deity will be.
May 23rd, 2005 at at 3:11 pm
Of course it’s the fear of death, at our christian funerals ,even though christian theology tells us different, everyone is assuring you that RIGHT NOW, your dearly departed is in a better place with the angels and Jesus.
What about all the stuff about the second coming and a final judgement of the quick and the dead, should anybody be in heaven other than our favorite anthropomorphic Supreme being(s).
May 23rd, 2005 at at 6:22 pm
Marvin: Thank you for the recommendation. I’ll check it out.
Athana: Well put. This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I posted Transitional Atheism.
May 23rd, 2005 at at 7:46 pm
“It facilitated the transition from unaware animals to sentient, social beings.”
To me you’re putting the cart befor the horse. To say that religion facilitated our transition to social animals is unlikely at best. We are not the only social animal. Wolves and ants come to mind. To me, it is more likely that religion was used to first, explain the horrors famin, disease, weather, etc, etc. Then it was used to keep people in line. When a clan became a city, murder and all the goodies associated with modern society become more prevelant. Don’t screw your neighbor’s wife kind of thing. Now your neighbor is a lot less likely to be your brother or cousin.
May 23rd, 2005 at at 11:40 pm
Athana, that is just ridiculous. Explanations of the real world are not subject to everyone’s emotions or how they were raised. Explanation of the real world comes through logic and science, not dogmatic belief. Because of that, there is one true explanation for the natural phenomena that we observe. Science allows us to explain this using reason. Atheists recognize science as the correct tool for acquiring knowledge. Religions on the other hand, don’t even try to answer the questions for how the real world works usually. It’s always “god works in mysterious ways”, “you gotta have faith”, “he has a plan for all of us”, etc. They rely on what they were told, not what current rational thought suggests.
And the inanimate universe is by no means my god. That is laughable. Fuck the inanimate universe! (would I have said that to my god? i doubt).
May 25th, 2005 at at 12:42 pm
Good to see an addition to the ranks of rationality and critical thinking.
I recommend reading “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes. He theorized that earlier man did not have consciousness or self-awareness as we know it. Unconsciously produced auditory and visual hallucinations were seen as spirits and gods on every side, directing their actions. (For any who are familiar with Jaynes, I apologize for the bad description.)
One good (and short) explanation of his theory can be found at http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html.
May 25th, 2005 at at 3:31 pm
I actually have that book. Somone gave it to me a couple of years ago, but I never read it. Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out.
May 29th, 2005 at at 11:19 am
We all know of a legislative, executive and judiciary. I seem to remember hearing about one government that wanted to make the prisons independent of the others, but I am confident you get the idea that the “force” (executive) is separated from the laws (legislative) or you have tyranny. This is dealt with extensively by the oracle of the American republic, Charles de Secondat, baron of montesquieu.
A long, long time ago, there wasn’t much in the way of peer-review or facts, and yet there was still “force” (king) which begged for some reigning in. (heh, reign). Anyway, priests served this function. Henry VIII, for example, could not divorce. The King and Subjects were all to play by the same rules, and a non-corrupt Priesthood served many roles, principally being guardians of this system of laws and punishment (e.g. thou shall nots and delivering your tribe to bondage) and it’s arbiters(judges).
Now, starting a new line, let’s talk about prophecy. If a million people were asked to write down their guesses for the next 100,000 years, within 10 years a review could be done and it would be seen that many of them were wrong. It is doubtful that many will be correct after 100 years, and I simply don’t believe anyone could write anything meaningful about 100,000 years.
Switching tracks, let’s say every tribe on Earth started with a religion. All of their gods exist not only to guide them, but to protect them. Surely gods wouldn’t want their worshippers obliterated? “Protect Me and Save Me” If the tribe is destroyed, we simply remove that religion from the list. Eventually we have fewer, until the god that was protecting them obviously is more credible than before.
September 14th, 2005 at at 7:16 am
I am doing an MA on this topic at the moment- although I personally agreed with the idea that religion is a result for us to deny death, I have found that for many people the afterlife is NOT a comforting idea at all. If they strongly believe that they will go to hell it can actually increase their fears.